ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Why focus only on software"

(added argument about whether software can really be seperated from hardware)
(moving new "hardware manufacturing" section to the "axe the whole patent system" article, see Talk:)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Whether patents are good or bad in a particular domain depends on different criteria. Some domains, such as writing software, writing books, composing music, performing math, building appliances, and designing electronic circuits, , etc. are domains where ordinary members of society participate, individually or in groups. To participate in a field which carries patent risks, you need money and lawyers. In the domains mentioned above, adding patents equates to taking away people's freedom to participate in these activities.
 
Whether patents are good or bad in a particular domain depends on different criteria. Some domains, such as writing software, writing books, composing music, performing math, building appliances, and designing electronic circuits, , etc. are domains where ordinary members of society participate, individually or in groups. To participate in a field which carries patent risks, you need money and lawyers. In the domains mentioned above, adding patents equates to taking away people's freedom to participate in these activities.
  
This has been split into two sections. The original section mentioned car manufacturing specifically, the second section uses the term hardware manufacturing to cover any product that isn't software.
+
==How patents on different domains affect society==
 
 
==Comparison to car manufacturing==
 
 
For the manufacturing of cars, you have to consider how patents will affect:
 
For the manufacturing of cars, you have to consider how patents will affect:
 
# the cost of mass production
 
# the cost of mass production
Line 28: Line 26:
  
 
That said, there's no reason for anti-swpat campaigners to endorse patents in other fields.  We don't have to say that patents are ok elsewhere but not for software.  We can simply say that we don't have an opinion on other fields, but for software we have a strong opinion that there should be no software patents.
 
That said, there's no reason for anti-swpat campaigners to endorse patents in other fields.  We don't have to say that patents are ok elsewhere but not for software.  We can simply say that we don't have an opinion on other fields, but for software we have a strong opinion that there should be no software patents.
 
==Comparison to hardware manufacturing==
 
 
For the manufacturing of hardware, you have to consider how patents will affect:
 
 
# the cost of mass production
 
# the impact on quality/safety of what's offered to citizens
 
# the impact on the economy overall
 
 
Whether innovations in hardware manufacturing should be patentable or not is open to question. While hardware is different than software, some of the same principles apply (i.e. new innovations are built on earlier innovations). What is definitely different is the cost of reproduction, since the effective cost of reproduction is zero.
 
 
For software, there are similar questions to the three above, plus there is the fourth question of individual liberty and the effectiveness of communities. This question is also pertinent to hardware manufacturing. While individuals and communities often don't manufacture hardware [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amana_Corporation see the Amana Corporation and Community] they sometimes do, and even when they don't, the question of individual liberty is important. A device that was not operable by women for example would not be acceptable in most societies.
 
 
If someone patents a method for making hardware, it may not directly reduce people's liberty, however if may indirectly do so. For example a patent was recently issued for a propane powered lawnmower. Propane powered lawnmowers had been made by hobbyists for years, however the issuance of this patent makes converting a gasoline fueled lawnmower to propane fuel by a hobbyist illegal. It is possible that this patent was not legally issued, depending upon how the patent office rules are interpreted.
 
 
It has been argued that making and designing hardware requires a large amounts of money and materials, that there laws and regulations that place restrictions on making various types of hardware. While this is true, anddyone with a minimal amount of education can learn how to build large hardware projects, for an example in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrappy_Races#Scrappy_Races_.28UK.29 Scrappy Races] competitors have to build [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile Automobiles] out of scrap with a limited budget, and race them across the United Kingdom. As an example of a patent that could affect this sort of competition is the one litigated in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_v._Teleflex KSR vs Teleflex] where the patent in question was invalidated by the Supreme Court of the United States. The patent covered a particular shape of lever, which was found to be obvious by the court.
 
 
All of the arguments against software patents, also apply to hardware patents. The issues are:
 
 
#1 Do we limit our effectiveness by only arguing against one issue?
 
#2 Do we make ourselves more effective by only arguing against one issue?
 
#3 Do we leave ourselves open to further attack at a later time by only arguing one issue?
 
 
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==

Revision as of 18:02, 1 June 2009

Whether patents are good or bad in a particular domain depends on different criteria. Some domains, such as writing software, writing books, composing music, performing math, building appliances, and designing electronic circuits, , etc. are domains where ordinary members of society participate, individually or in groups. To participate in a field which carries patent risks, you need money and lawyers. In the domains mentioned above, adding patents equates to taking away people's freedom to participate in these activities.

How patents on different domains affect society

For the manufacturing of cars, you have to consider how patents will affect:

  1. the cost of mass production
  2. the impact on quality/safety of what's offered to citizens
  3. the impact on the economy overall

Campaigners against software patents are usually not general experts on those topics, so we might not know if innovations in car manufacturing should be patentable or not.

For software, there are similar questions to the three above, plus there is the fourth question of individual liberty and the effectiveness of communities.

This question isn't pertinent to car manufacturing because individuals and communities usually don't manufacture cars.

If someone patents a method for making a car, that doesn't reduce people's liberty. Making cars requires a lot of cash and materials, and there are already many laws that places regulations and restrictions on making cars. So people already excluded. Adding a patent problem doesn't change anything.

For one thing, software is mass produced by individuals and groups who don't get paid directly for that work (or do it for non-commercial reasons). Adding the cost of the patent system is unfair to these people.

Communities write great software (a community wrote most of GNU/Linux). People should continue to have their right to participate in the development and distribution of software, and to continue to benefit from the work of the vast community that develops the software that people use. Patents would create problems for individuals' liberty, and for the general software development which society as a whole benefits.

Pointing out general failings and costs of the patent system can be useful because it lets me make the argument: "patents are massively inefficient, therefore they should only be applied where we're absolutely sure that they're worthwhile". Some people think the whole patent system should be abolished, but this is a minority opinion among anti-swpat campaigns.

Choosing our opposition

On the other hand, by criticising a wider category of patents, we increase the number of opponents we have to debate. By fighting software patents, we have to fight Microsoft, IBM, and other large companies. If we fight all patents, then we also have to fight the whole pharmaceutical industry and the car manufacturing industry. So we make it harder to achieve our goal.

That said, there's no reason for anti-swpat campaigners to endorse patents in other fields. We don't have to say that patents are ok elsewhere but not for software. We can simply say that we don't have an opinion on other fields, but for software we have a strong opinion that there should be no software patents.

See also

External links